The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, January 9, 2015

Iran's weapons industries are at
the service of Hezbollah, while Hezbollah tries to acquire
precision-guided rockets and missiles for future attacks on strategic
Israeli sites.The Middle East is increasingly becoming an area where it is harder
for actors to exercise control over their situations or to control
events.

Despite Israel's deterrence, the risk of an inadvertent clash between Israel and Hezbollah is rising.

The new year holds many new dangers and few opportunities, as
Israel's two near enemies, Hezbollah in Lebanon on its northern front
and Hamas in Gaza on its west, continue their large-scale armament
programs, and prepare for a future day when they will fight another war
with Israel.

Although neither Hezbollah nor Hamas has an interest in sparking a
war with Israel any time soon -- when they stand to suffer widespread,
lasting, and crippling damage from any such clash -- both are
nevertheless preparing in earnest.

Hezbollah, armed with over 100,000 rockets and missiles, can rain
down an unprecedented number projectiles on Israel. In addition, Hamas
and Hezbollah are planning cross-border raids by sending highly trained
murder squads, in order to take their fight into Israeli territory, as
Hamas began doing this past summer through the tunnels it built for that
purpose in Gaza.

With the region in chaos, and each side arming and training itself
for when hostilities break out, the risk of a localized incident
inadvertently igniting a wider clash -- or simply an error in judgment
-- appears to have grown significantly.

Even though Hezbollah, acting under Iranian orders, is neck deep in
its involvement in the Syrian civil war, and is stretched across Syria
and Lebanon, its pace of preparations for war with Israel continues
unaffected. The Syrian conflict has even given it some new tools, which
it can deploy against Israel, such as improved ability to coordinate
ground maneuvers. This build-up of offensive abilities represents the
most serious challenge to Israel's security in the immediate vicinity.

Hezbollah
combat units, battle-hardened from fighting in the Syrian civil war,
now have improved capabilities to deploy against Israel.

This does not mean that the Lebanese Shi'ite terror organization is
seeking an all-out war at this moment -- in fact, the opposite seems
true.

Its actions seem designed to keep a confrontation with Israel on a
low flame for the time being, while it focuses on Syria. Despite its
extremist ideology, Hezbollah would not gain much from prompting Israel
to unleash waves of devastating firepower on its assets across Lebanon.

Nonetheless, any "error" or misjudgment by Hezbollah could end up
triggering a sequence of events that could well lead to war. Should that
happen, there are no guarantees that the conflict would remain limited
to Lebanon and Israel. Other arenas, such as Gaza and Syria, could
easily be sucked in as well.

The Middle East is increasingly becoming an area where it is harder
for actors to exercise control over their situation or to control
events.

Israel still remains the most powerful side in the Middle East, and
as it is now preparing to deal with growing semi-state
guerilla-terrorist forces on its borders, it has to ready for itself for
the possibility that a conflict on one border will quickly spread to
another. In the past, it was believed that such conflicts could be
short-lived, but the duration of future clashes may be lengthier than
many have previously believed.

As its military continues assessing the challenges across the borders, Israel remains prepared for all eventualities.Yaakov LappinSource: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5017/middle-east-war-risk Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

While sanctions on North Korea grabbed headlines, few of us were
aware of the rising tensions between India and Pakistan that could have
far-reaching consequences for us in the West.

The
crew of a Pakistani vessel suspected of carrying terrorists set the
ship ablaze after being intercepted by the Indian coast guard.

During the holiday season, while North American media obsessed over
North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony Corporation and dressed it up as a
major international incident, a far more serious confrontation between
two other nuclear powers escaped their attention.

While sanctions on North Korea grabbed headlines, few of us were
aware of the rising tensions between India and Pakistan that could have
far-reaching consequences for us in the West.

On New Year's Eve, as people partied around the globe, a naval incident was unfolding in the Arabian Sea, some 365 km off the Indian
city of Porbander.

India's defence ministry would later disclose in a statement that its
coast guard ships and aircraft had intercepted a "suspect" Pakistani
fishing boat after Indian intelligence tracked the vessel as it left
port near Karachi.

Fishing boats that cross into the other country's waters are
regularly impounded by both India and Pakistan, but this boat was
hundreds of miles into international waters when the Indians started
giving chase.

Instead of stopping and allowing the Indian Coast Guard officials to
board the boat, the Pakistani vessel tried to escape. This resulted in
an hour-long chase that reportedly only ended when the four "fishermen"
set their vessel on fire before blowing themselves up. The Indian Coast
Guard released a video of the boat exploding in a huge ball of fire.

"I can assure you that those on the boat
were not smugglers. The boat was blown up and only people who are
motivated and trained could commit suicide."

Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar

India's Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar claimed the boat was carrying "suspected terrorists" who were "in touch with the Pakistan Army and the Pakistani establishment."

After the Indian Express newspaper and the opposition Congress
suggested the men on the boat were smugglers, not terrorists, Parrikar
asserted: "I can assure you that those on the boat were not smugglers.
The boat was blown up and only people who are motivated and trained
could commit suicide."

For its part, Pakistan strongly rejected Indian allegations the boat
was on a terror mission, calling the charges "baseless and
preposterous".

A Foreign Office spokesperson in Islamabad repeated the now familiar
Pakistan refrain that, "Pakistan is opposed to terrorism in all forms
and manifestation and has been the biggest victim of terrorism."

The alleged "terror boat" journey was eerily similar to one
undertaken by another group of Pakistani terrorists in their 2008 attack
on Mumbai.

Seen in the context of Pakistan blaming India for the recent Taliban
massacre of students at an army school in Peshawar, could the boat have
been part of a reprisal terror attack gone bad?

On Feb. 21
last year, the former head of India's Intelligence Bureau, who has now
taken over as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's national security adviser,
uttered a sentence at a speech on India-Pakistan relations that may
indicate the seriousness of the current crisis. Ajit Kumar Doval told an
audience at a lecture on the "Strategic Response to Terrorism" at an
Indian university: "You can do one (more) Mumbai; you may lose
Balochistan."

Balochistan is Pakistan's largest province where there is a guerrilla
war for independence from Islamabad. It sits at the mouth of the
Straits of Hormuz from where much of the world's oil supplies are
exported.

If Doval is right, the next war between India and Pakistan will be
fought over Balochistan and may involve Islamabad authorizing the "first
use" of tactical nuclear weapons.

The Porbander boat incident may very well become the Gulf of Tonkin
incident that more than 50 years ago triggered the Vietnam war.

Even after the appearance of the Islamic State, politicians like U.S. President Obama and U.K. Prime Minister Cameron insist that the “caliphate” is not Islamic, despite all the evidence otherwise.
Yet here is Sisi, the pious Muslim, saying that the majority of the
terrorism plaguing the world today is related to the holy texts of Islam
themselves

On New Year’s Day, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi -- the hero of Egypt’s 2013 anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution -- made some remarkable comments concerning the need for a “religious revolution.”

Sisi made his remarks during a speech celebrating the birth of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad -- which was ironically held on January 1, 2015 (a day not acknowledged or celebrated in the Muslim world as it is based on a Christian calendar) -- and he was addressing the nation’s top Islamic authorities from among the Awqaf Ministry (religious endowments) and Al Azhar University.

Although Sisi’s words were directed to Islam’s guardians and articulators, they indirectly lead to several important lessons for Western observers.

First, in just a few words, Sisi delivered a dose of truth and hard-hitting reality concerning the Islamic world’s relationship to the rest of the world -- a dose of reality very few Western leaders dare think let alone proclaim.

“It’s inconceivable,” he said, “that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!”

What a refreshingly honest statement to come from not only a political leader but a Muslim political leader who has much to lose, not least his life. Contrast his very true words with the habitual reassurances of the Western establishment that Islamic world violence is a product of anything and everything but Islam.

Even after the appearance of the Islamic State, politicians like U.S. President Obama and U.K. Prime Minister Cameron insist that the “caliphate” is not Islamic, despite all the evidence otherwise. Yet here is Sisi, the pious Muslim, saying that the majority of the terrorism plaguing the world today is related to the holy texts of Islam themselves:

That thinking [that is responsible for producing “anxiety, danger, killing and destruction” around the world] -- I am not saying “religion” but “thinking” -- that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world.

As a Muslim, Sisi will not say that Islam, the “religion,” is responsible for “antagonizing the entire world,” but he certainly gets much closer to saying that than his Western counterparts when he says that this “thinking” is rooted in an Islamic “corpus of texts and ideas” which have become so “sacralized.”

Here in the West, Islamic terrorists are seen as mere “criminals” and their terrorism as “crimes” without any mention of any Islamic text or ideology influencing them.

The Egyptian president further invoked the classical Islamic teaching -- the “thinking” -- that divides the world into two warring halves: the Muslim world (or in Islamic/Arabic parlance, Dar al-Islam) which must forever be in a struggle with the rest of the world (or Dar al-Harb, the “abode of war”) till, in the Koran’s words, “all religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 8:39).

“Is it possible,” asked Sisi, “that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants -- that is 7 billion -- so that they themselves may live?”

Sisi made another important point that Western leaders and media habitually lie about: after affirming that Islamic “thinking” is “antagonizing the entire world,” he said that “this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost -- and it is being lost by our own hands.”

In other words, Islamic terrorism and chaos is not a product of grievance, territorial disputes, colonialism, Israel, offensive cartoons, or anything else the West comes up. It’s a product of their “own hands.”

Again, one must appreciate how refreshing it is for a top political leader in the heart of the Islamic world to make such candid admissions that his Western counterparts dare not even think let alone speak. And bear in mind, Sisi has much to lose as opposed to Western politicians. Calls by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists that he is an apostate are sure to grow more aggressive now.

The critic may ask, “All well and good, but words aside, what has Sisi actually done to help bring about this “religious revolution”? In fact, one popular journalist, Ibrahim Eissa, recently said just this on live television in Egypt:

Five months have passed since he [Sisi] became president, after his amazing showing at elections. Okay: the president has, more than once, indicated the need for a renewal of religious discourse…. But he has not done a single thing, President Sisi, to renew religious discourse. Nothing at all.

Yet it seems that Sisi has an answer for this, too: it is not his job as president of Egypt to reform the thinking of the Islamic world; rather, that role belongs to the ulema -- which is precisely why he addressed them with such candid words. Indeed, he repeatedly stressed that it is the ulema’s job to lead this “religious revolution.”

Thus,

“I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move…. I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema -- Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.”

Meanwhile, as Sisi was making these groundbreaking if not historic statements, the Western mainstream media, true to form, ignored them and instead offered puerile and redundant headlines like:

· “Egypt President Sisi urged to free al-Jazeera reporter” (BBC, Jan 1; to which I respond, “So Al Jazeera can continue lying and misleading the West about Sisi and Egypt’s anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution?”)

· “Egyptian gays living in fear under Sisi regime” (USA Today, Jan. 2; to which I respond, “Homosexuals live in fear in all Islamic nations, regardless of Sisi.”)

· “George Clooney’s wife Amal risks arrest in Egypt” (Fox News, to which I respond, “Who cares? Only her innocence or guilt matter, not her husband’s fame” -- which is the only reason Fox News chose this story.)

Whether concerning the true nature of Islam or the true nature of Sisi, this is the latest example of how unfathomably ignorant all those millions of people who exclusively follow the so-called “mainstream media” must surely be.

Today’s European Muslims have successfully accomplished what the
Nazis could not accomplish in World War II. They have sown an
irreversible dread into Europe and implanted a fascist-like Islamist
seed that has taken firm root.

It’s time that we finally admit it. The battle for Old Europe is
over. The Gates of Vienna have finally been breached. Old Europe has
been experiencing a tidal wave of violence and terror in recent years
correlating to and in direct proportion with the growing influence of
Muslims in the western part of the continent. Yesterday’s massacre
in Paris by Muslims screaming “Allahuakbar” (what else?) represents a
culmination of growing Muslim power and even dominance in France.
Britain, Sweden, Belgium and the rest of the sorry lot are not too far
behind. Today’s European Muslims have successfully accomplished what the
Nazis could not accomplish in World War II. They have sown an
irreversible dread into Europe and implanted a fascist-like Islamist
seed that has taken firm root.

It is ironic that France has been the recent target of most of the
violence. France of all the countries of Old Europe is one of Islam’s
greatest appeasers. For all its official rhetoric, France has done
precious little to stem the growing tide of Jew-hatred and
anti-Israelism that has gripped that country. The sign of a sick and
diseased country can be measured by its treatment of its Jews and by
that paradigm, France’s condition is terminal. Mass emigration
of French Jewry, prompted primarily by French Islamists, is met with
muted response and inaction by French officials who appear either
indifferent to their plight or at a loss to devise a coherent strategy
to effectively deal with the phenomena.

Since the mid-1960s, the French, motivated partly out of greed,
partly out of a need to needle the United States and partly out of
genuine dislike for the Mideast’s only democracy, have done everything
in their power to appease tyranny rather than fight it, to prop it up
rather than obliterate it.

In May 1967 France was the first Western power to unilaterally impose
an arms embargo on Israel at a precarious time when Israel was facing
existential threats from its Arab neighbors. From Iraq to Algeria,
frenzied Arab mobs stoked by their respective venal governments burned
effigies of Jews in the streets to chants of Itbach al-Yahud,
“slaughter the Jews!” The world watched with feigned concern as hundreds
of thousands of Arabs soldiers backed by modern Soviet T-55 tanks
and Mig fighter jets converged on Israel’s borders. The French, who
barely had time to shed the stench of their collaborationist Vichy past,
chose to abandon and betray the Jewish State in a transparent effort to
curry favor with the Muslim world. The French sold their morality for
oil and a few Francs.

France’s duplicitous foreign policies when it came to appeasing
two-bit Arab dictators only went from bad to worse. They helped Saddam
Hussein construct an atom bomb plant and supplied the tyrant with
massive quantities of Mirage fighter jets, missiles, tanks and
artillery. For those who need reminding, this is the same chap who paid lavish sums to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, who threatened to “burn half of Israel” and employed chemical weapons against his own people.

The French really know how to pick ‘em. Successive French governments have developed a penchant for coddling up
to the most vile Islamic dictators and terror sponsoring states. Close
relationships were forged with Hafez Assad of Syria and arch terror
chieftain Yasser Arafat, a despicable murderer who was always warmly
greeted by adoring and fawning French officials.

Rather than fighting and combatting Islamic terrorists, the French
have a nasty habit of paying them off. They released frozen Iranian
assets in exchange for cessation of Iranian-backed terror attacks
against France and paid Palestinian groups protection money in an effort
to spare their commercial airliners from the scourge of Palestinian
skyjackings.

France’s abominable foreign policy reared its ugly head yet again when on December 30, it backed
a Palestinian resolution at the UN Security Council that imposed
dictates on Israel, compelling the Jewish State to withdraw to pre-1967
borders – borders which Israel’s former UN ambassador, Abba Ebban,
perceptively termed “Auschwitz lines“–
without addressing Israel’s security needs and territorial claims. The
one-sided resolution also gave implicit recognition to the notion that
millions of “Palestinian refugees” would be allowed to flood Israel,
effectively ending the Jewish character of the state.

To the leaders of France, composed of Neville Chamberlin lookalikes,
adopting the Palestinian narrative and coddling up to the Mideast’s
Muslim dictators, is good for business and insulates France against
Islamic-inspired terror attacks. Yesterday’s barbaric Muslim massacre of
French political satirists, journalists and policemen in Paris proves
otherwise and should compel French leaders to reevaluate their foreign
and liberal domestic policies. It should also serve as a wakeup call for
the rest of Old Europe to do the same but something tells me that this
will not occur and there will be no course correction.

We will hear from “moderate” French Muslim leaders who will rush to exercise the Muslim principle of Taqiyya
and feign concern for the victims while condemning the actions of their
coreligionists. This expression of faux sympathy will be enough to
placate France’s leadership and their very forgiving multicultural
allies. In a few weeks or perhaps months, all will return to “normal.”
French Muslim Imams will continue to spew hate
directed against the “infidels” from the mosques. Violent anti-Israel,
Jew-hating protests will resume in the streets of Paris and Marseilles
and French officials will once again move to condemn Israel for
committing some imaginary offense because it’s good for business. The
Gates of Vienna have been breached.Ari Lieberman Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/ari-lieberman/appeasement-comes-back-to-haunt-france/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

So
here we are with at least 1,700 mosques that promote jihad, the vast
majority of Muslims attending such mosques, and millions upon millions
of dollars flowing in from Saudi Arabia
building this dangerous empire. Put it all together and one realizes
that mosques serve as jihadist recruitment and training centers.

As
the Islamic invasion advances, mosques are proliferating across the
United States at breakneck speed. And there appears to be no end in sight.

Since
9/11, the number of mosques in America has grown by 75%. The timing of
this is no coincidence. Mosques are a symbol of Islamic supremacism.
Islam attacks. Then it plants a triumphal mosque on the battlefield. And
another. And another. And another.

The proliferation of mosques is also a sign of our incomprehensible response (or lack thereof) to the threat of Islam.

War
has been waged against the United States and what have we done? We have
welcomed the enemy with open arms. Dhimmitude has paved the way for
hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new mosques since the day nearly
3,000 Americans were murdered in the name of Islam.

If
we don’t put an end to this madness, we will ensure the continued
assault against us – an assault that, ultimately, will spare no one. (Do
you hear that, dhimmis? That includes you.)

Mosques
pose a dual risk to Americans. First there is the nature of what is
preached inside the walls of the mosque. Second is the nature of the
walls themselves.

As to the first point, recentstudies show that 80% of mosques preach jihad (through sermons and/or materials) and that more than 95% of Muslims attend such mosques.

But the horror doesn’t end there as one considers the issue of funding.
While many Muslims claim they raise the money for mosques within the
local community, there is reason to doubt this assertion in many cases.
Common sense alone would cause one to question how, for example, tiny communities of Muslims could raise millions of dollars to built gigantic mosques. Common sense aside, there is evidence that shows that 80% of mosques in this country receive funds from Saudi Arabia.

So
here we are with at least 1,700 mosques that promote jihad, the vast
majority of Muslims attending such mosques, and millions upon millions
of dollars flowing in from Saudi Arabia
building this dangerous empire. Put it all together and one realizes
that mosques serve as jihadist recruitment and training centers.

Welcome
to the intersection of religion and politics. In the case of Islam,
welcome to hell. Because at its core, Islam is a totalitarian ideology
that demands submission. In fact, the word Islam literally meanssubmission: as in convert, pay the jizya tax and live as a second-class citizen, or die.

Anyone
who wants to argue otherwise (1) has not read the Koran, (2) does not
understand the implications of Chapter 2, Verse 106: Abrogation, whereby
more recent violent verses supersede earlier more peaceful verses, (3)
is uneducated about world history as it pertains to the rise and fall of
Islam, (4) is not paying attention to the Islamic savagery unfolding
before our eyes in the Middle East and elsewhere, (5) is in deep denial,
and/or (6) is lying.To
fully appreciate the danger of mosques, once should also heed the words
of Turkish poet Ziya Gokalp (quoted by Turkey's PM Erdogan in a 1997
speech):

The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army.

These words are a chilling reminder of the role mosques
serve when the time arrives for violent conquest. Although Gokalp wrote
the words in 1912, the idea dates back centuries, as the Investigative Project on Terrorismreports. (If you have difficulty with the link, the same report can be found at here.)

…The
prophet Muhammad's first project was to construct a mosque in his city,
Medina, which served as his residence and a government headquarters of
sorts. Muhammad turned the mosque into a center of preaching where…the
Muslim army was prepared for wars and raids on the enemies of Islam. A
commonly held view by Muslim religious scholars is that a mosque is more
than just a place of worship and can have military and political uses….

The
view that mosques can serve as military bases is upheld today by
influential Muslim clerics who preach that mosques be used as places
from which to launch jihad attacks. And, indeed, in modern times we have
seen mosques used for military operations in countries around the
world. Here is a snapshot of places and situations where mosques have
been used as military outposts per an analysis posted at the Investigative Project on Terrorism:

Lebanon, Afghanistan, and areas where the Palestinian Authority has control; Hamas and Hezb’allah routinely use mosques for military operations.

In
Iraq, US military forces frequently discovered munitions stored in
mosques and had intense battles against terrorists using mosques for
military purposes.

Mosques
are also routinely used for military operations in places where Islamic
terror organizations wield political and/or military might against the
government. This occurs in many Arab countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and
Syria) and has also been seen in Pakistan.

In addition, mosques have been used for military purposes in Great Britain, Italy, Germany, and Spain.

Do
you see a pattern here? It’s the same pattern we see with all aspects
of the growing Caliphate as Islam spreads outward from the Middle East
to engulf more and more nations. And toward that end there is the
ever-present mosque – a place where jihad is preached and in some cases,
a place from which the jihadist attack is launched. (If the idea
of having jihad attacks launched from mosques across America does not
seem plausible, in addition to pondering what I just wrote, look into
the 3 stages of jihad.)

When
considering this intolerable situation be aware that increasing numbers
of mosques in the United States are enormous mega mosques. Some are in
cities. Some are in small (once quiet) residential communities. And some
are in rural areas where the size of the building/compound is
drastically out of proportion to the Muslim population of the region. CBNreports:

"It
does seem to be part of a larger strategy to build mosques in rural
areas and create Islamic communities -- large Islamic communities -- in
rural areas for some larger purpose," said Bynum, a columnist for the
New English Review.

And
if all this weren’t bad enough, we the people are battling our own
government facing off against these dangerous mosques. As has become the
norm with the Obama administration, the enemy Department of Justice
under Eric Holder has aligned with mosques against the people. Here are
just two examples from last year, among an ever-growing list:

In Bridgewater,
New Jersey, a mega mosque was rejected by the city council due to a
local ordinance that limits houses of worship to major roads. The DOJ
and CAIR teamed up and forced the town to pay nearly eight million
dollars to the mosque, which will be built elsewhere.

In St. Anthony Village, Minnesota,
after the city council voted down a mosque citing zoning laws, once
again the DOJ stepped in, sided with CAIR, and paved the way for the mosque to be built. A few years prior when a Christian group was denied use of the same space for the same reason, Holder did nothing. Apparently he can’t resist an opportunity to help Islam plant the flag of conquest on American soil.

Holder’s on a reckless roll and he’s only warming up. As recently reported at American Thinker:

Holder
is confidently moving ahead with investigations into twenty-eight cases
nationwide involving local denials of mosques, many of which have
seated radical imams and officials tied to terrorist groups.

The
mosque nightmare is riddled with one disastrous layer after another. In
this case, Holder, Muslim Brotherhood front groups, and the ACLU form a
triad of evil-doers who are using the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to force mosques on communities that reject them.

RLUIPA
is about places of worship, zoning, and discrimination (real or
imagined). The law gives authority to the federal government to step in
and steam roll over local control regarding religious venues. Per the DOJ web site:

(1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions;
(2) discriminate against any assemblies or institutions on the basis of religion or religious denomination;
(3) totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(4) unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

The Department of Justice can investigate alleged RLUIPA violations and bring a lawsuit to enforce the statute….

(For an excellent overview of the law including some historical perspective, see here and here. Pamela Geller offers additional insight, here.)

Holder’s
actions fall within the larger context of Obama’s persistent and
intentional alignment with America’s enemies against the nation he has
sworn to protect. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the mosque menace
occurred in 2011 when Obama shut down all FBI monitoring of mosques in
the United States. Investor’s Business Dailyreports:

Since
October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more
surveillance or undercover string (sic) operations without high-level
approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed
the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

Who
makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the
names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

We
do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who
complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's
formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the
ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of
Muslims….

Before
mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the
administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting
operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted
dozens of plots against the homeland.

So
here we are with at least 1,700 mosques that promote jihad, the vast
majority of Muslims attending such mosques, millions upon millions of
dollars flowing in from Saudi Arabia,
increasing numbers of mega mosques, a history of mosques being used as
military outposts, an antagonistic DOJ forcing mosques on communities, a
neutered FBI, and a president who sympathizes with Islam – the greatest
national security threat this nation has ever faced.

It
is that simple, that stark, and that horrifying. Regrettably, the
masses (including most elected officials irrespective of political
party) do not appear to grasp this shocking and dangerous truth.

The situation, as noted at the outset of this article, is incomprehensible.

Speak out. Take action. Get involved. Join an organization
to help focus your efforts. Let your elected officials know where you
stand and what you expect. Educate them. Many are woefully uninformed.

We cannot tolerate mosques spread across America preaching jihad. Treason must not be allowed to stand.

Hat tips: While I used numerous sources for my research, a special expression of gratitude is extended to Atlas Shrugs and Creeping Sharia
for their meticulous work documenting and cataloguing information on
issues related to Islam which helped expedite access to certain
information.

Our leaders regularly scoff at the notion of a “clash of
civilizations” between the West and Islam, as Secretary of State John
Kerry did when he said the attacks were “part of a larger confrontation,
not between civilizations, no, but between civilization itself and
those who are opposed to a civilized world.” The jihadists know better,
and like all enemies, they get a vote. They don’t just want to brutally
kill people in order to terrorize us into appeasement of their demands.
They want to kill our fundamental principles.

The three Muslim gunmen who killed 12 journalists in Paris targeted not just those people and their satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo,
but a core ideal and human right of the West––the right to free speech
in the public square defined by tolerance for different opinions. That’s
why the killers, after they had called out the names of their
individual victims before they shot them, bragged as they made their
escape that they had “killed” Charlie Hebdo. That’s why they also
cried, “The Prophet has been avenged,” since the magazine had
frequently spoofed Mohammed, most famously in its reprinting in 2006 of
cartoons parodying Mohammed. Apparently President Obama was prescient,
at least in the case of the twelve dead Parisians, when he warned in
2012, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of
Islam.”

Our leaders regularly scoff at the notion of a “clash of
civilizations” between the West and Islam, as Secretary of State John
Kerry did when he said the attacks were “part of a larger confrontation,
not between civilizations, no, but between civilization itself and
those who are opposed to a civilized world.” The jihadists know better,
and like all enemies, they get a vote. They don’t just want to brutally
kill people in order to terrorize us into appeasement of their demands.
They want to kill our fundamental principles.

And central to the political order of Western liberal democracies is
freedom of speech. If the citizen masses are to have the right to
participate in the political process, they must be assured that their
opinions can be expressed freely without fear of retaliation. And given
the great diversity of opinions, beliefs, and characters to be found
among the people, this expression will often be indecorous, rancorous,
and hurtful to those who disagree. But hurt feelings or wounded amour
propre cannot function as a veto on public expression, which is the
foundation stone of political freedom. As Sophocles said, “Free men have
free tongues.”

Yet we in the West, with our “hate speech” legislation and rules that
demonize “Islamophobia,” and our universities that disinvite critics of
Islam like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have given such a veto to the jihadists,
and in effect validated Islamic blasphemy laws as superior to our right
to free speech. After all, for Muslims who aspire to be “slaves of
Allah,” free speech cannot trump traditional Islamic notions of
blasphemy, a crime punishable by death according to the Koran. That’s
why the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 56 Muslim
nations, has actively been trying to make blasphemy a crime in
international law. That’s why it’s a Muslim majority state, NATO member
Turkey, that has jailed more journalists than any other country. And
that’s why anything Muslims perceive to be blasphemous––whether Salman
Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, the Jyllands-Posten cartoons making
fun of Mohammed, or Pope Benedict’s Regensburg speech––is met by riots
and murder on the part not just of jihadist groups, but also ordinary
Muslims.

The truth is, many Muslims see the whole Western political order as
radically different from––and in their view, inferior to––that of Islam.
The cultural cargo of human rights, tolerance of confessional
diversity, individual autonomy and self-determination, and political
freedom is incompatible with the traditional Islamic doctrine that a
divinely bestowed shari’a law is the only legitimate social-political
order that can create the best life in this world, and ensure the
enjoyment of paradise in the next.

But this truth about Islam’s conflict with liberal democracy––a truth
documented in 14 centuries of Islamic history and doctrine, and
supported by majorities of Muslims worldwide–– is repeatedly denied by
Western governments and intellectuals. White House spokesman Josh
Earnest repeated this false knowledge, saying after the killings that
Islam is “a peaceful religion and it’s terrible that we are seeing some
radical extremists attempt to use some of the values to [sic] that
religion and distort them greatly and inspire people to commit terrible
acts of violence.” Thus the illiberal, totalitarian nature of shari’a
evident in sex apartheid, honor killings, enslavement of girls,
persecution and murder of religious minorities, destruction of churches
and synagogues, and chronic jihadist violence is attributed to anything
and everything other than the role of sacralized violence in Muslim
history and theology, a patent fact dismissed as Islamophobic slander.
Meanwhile, jihadist slaughter continues worldwide, with almost 800
killed and wounded just in the last week of 2014.

Yet the greater irony of the reactions to the attack is that it took
place a few days after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s New
Year’s Day address, reported
by Shillman Fellow Raymond Ibrahim. The mainstream media ignored this
important and astonishing speech, but we need to ponder these words now,
while our leaders continue to deny the Islamic roots of the latest
jihadist murder:

It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we
hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a
source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the
world. Impossible! That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but
“thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over
the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost
impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the
entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people
[Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that
is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible! I am saying
these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and
ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning
that which I’m talking about now. All this that I am telling you, you
cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to
step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it
from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of
a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The
entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next
move … because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is
being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

So the leader of the Middle East’s largest
Muslim country admits the link between “the corpus of texts and ideas
that we have sacralized over the centuries” and jihadist aggression. No
mention of Israel and the worldwide Zionist conspiracy, no mention of
imperialism, colonialism, poverty, Islamophobia, or any of the other
specious excuses Western apologists trot out to rationalize jihadist
violence. No, the community of believers is “being lost by our own
hands.” Nor is the solution a Palestinian state, or more “respect” for
Islam, or more appeasement and concessions from self-loathing
Westerners. No, Muslim theologians and scholars must start a “religious
revolution,” and figure out how to reconcile their faith to modernity.

But that revolution is the business of
Muslims, particularly all those “moderate” Muslim masses we keep hearing
about but who are oddly silent about these serial jihadist
“distortions” of their faith. This country’s responsibility is to
protect our citizens and interests, and to do that we must awake from
our delusional slumbers. We must stop apologizing for our alleged
historical crimes, stop the self-censorship and agonizing over the hurt
feelings of those trying to kill us, stop peddling “religion of peace”
fairytales, and stop indulging the “profiling” angst and Islamophobia
canard. Most important, we must start basing our policies on truth and
common sense, and start taking action to defend our political principles
like freedom, individual rights, and tolerance, rather than just
talking about them.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research
Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and
Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine
books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on
Western Civilization. Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/bruce-thornton/when-will-we-wake-up/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

University of Maryland Professor
Jeffrey Herf helped lead the battle to defeat anti-Israel resolutions at
the American Historical Association, aswe wrote about on Sunday.
I asked him to submit this Guest Post to recount the events and
strategies, in the hope they will inform others facing similar
anti-Israel tactics.William A. Jacobson, Legal Insurrection

By now, readers of this blog probably know
that, by a vote of 144 to 51 with three abstentions, members of the
American Historical Association, at the Business Meeting of their annual
convention in New York City on January 4, 2015, decided not to pursue
two resolutions that denounced aspects of the policies of the government
of Israel.

It is the most decisive defeat that groups supporting resolutions
denouncing Israel have suffered since "BDS" (Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions) efforts gathered steam in American universities in recent
years.

This is a preliminary anatomy of its defeat.

The case for rejection on procedural grounds was straightforward. Readers of Legal Insurrection will understand that debates about procedure are also debates about substance and the rule of law.

The AHA bylaws require that members wishing to submit resolutions to
be considered at the Business Meeting must do so by November lst.

An initial resolution was submitted by the Historians Against the War
(HAW). HAW is a group of leftist academics that emerged in opposition
to the war in Iraq and that issued a petition alleging Israel had
committed "war crimes" during the war with Hamas last summer. I wrote
about the emergence of a "pro-Hamas left".

An earlier anti-Israeli resolution was rejected because, according toAHA executive director James Grossman, it went"beyond matters of concern to the Association, to the profession of history, or to the academic profession."

HAW's original petition included demands for a boycott of Israel
universities and implementation of the Palestinian right of return. That
resolution was rejected by the AHA Council because the advocates had
not gathered enough signatures and because the content of the resolution
was deemed, in the words of AHA executive director James Grossman,
"beyond matters of concern to the Association, to the profession of
history, or to the academic profession."

On December 22, 2014, HAW submitted revised resolutions. The
revisions eliminated the boycott and right of return elements but
included allegations that Israel threatened an oral history archive when
it bombed buildings at the Islamic University in Gaza in August 2014,
and that it denied access of foreign scholars and Palestinian students
to universities in Gaza and on the West Bank.

HAW then requested that the AHA Council decide whether or not to
place the resolution on the agenda, even though it was submitted six
weeks after the deadline, something that the Council had the right to
do, despite the restrictions regarding resolutions in the organization's
bylaws.

At its meeting on January 2, 2014, the Council, led by AHA President
Jan Goldstein (University of Chicago), refused to do so for two reasons.

First, the December 22 resolution was submitted six weeks after the November 1 deadline, and therefore, AHA members did not have the opportunity to evaluate them.

Second, because the resolutions were filed so late, many members
would not be at the business meeting because they did not know these
matters would be discussed there.

A memo by Sonya Michel of the University of Maryland is an important
document in this matter. Submitted on December 29th, the Michel memo was
circulated to the AHA Council.

Michel urged that the AHA Council not to place the HAW resolutions on
the agenda because doing so would "be violating the spirit of that
bylaw" requiring a two-thirds majority, which,"was probably inserted to
prevent a small group (whether a minority or slim majority) from
imposing its will at the last minute on the membership at large, perhaps
catching them unawares about an important issue coming up." Doing so
would also not give "members adequate time and opportunity for full
consideration of important issues–issues that, in this case, are by all
accounts extremely controversial," she added. "Notifying members that
these items are on the agenda of the meeting only at the meeting itself
would deny them the kind of information they would need to decide
whether or not to attend the Business Meeting in the first place."

Michel and a number of us elaborated on these points as well at the
business meeting. As I pointed out on the floor of that meeting, the
issue of time needed for reflection was of central concern to
historians.

The rejection of the resolutions also rested
on a reassertion of the principle that the AHA is a scholarly, not a
political, organization.

To ask historians at a business meeting to reach conclusions about
assertions of fact regarding events that supposedly occurred during the
Gaza War and travel rights of scholars in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank
was absurd. This was the case because it was asking historians to act
on the basis political opinions rather than as a result of careful
examination of evidence. No one, we argued, was able to make such
assessments as a result of scholarly research. Doing so without research
would be abolishing the distinction between politics and
scholarship—doing what no historian should do, namely assume what
remained to be proven before examination of evidence had taken place.

If HAW had achieved a two-thirds majority that was needed to "suspend
the rules" and proceed to discussion of the resolutions, a number of us
were prepared to challenge all of the factual assertions made in the
HAW resolutions.

On December 15, 2014, I sent a memo to President Goldstein. Drawing
on the reporting of Ehud Yaari, an Israeli journalist who reported on
Gaza, I offered the Council and colleagues an account of events by this
reliable journalist and by the government of Israel. The presentation of
that evidence meant that AHA Members would, in effect, be faced with
deciding between the account of events offered by Israel, a liberal
democracy with a thriving political opposition and free press, and
accounts offered by Hamas, a terrorist organization that suppressed all
opposition, intimidated the press and media, and whose charter repeats
the falsehoods of classic Jew-hatred.

If AHA members had adopted the HAW
resolutions, the name of the American Historical Association would have
become publicly associated with the version of events peddled by Hamas,
an organization justly famous for terrorism and anti-Semitism.

Again, AHA members could not as historians render judgments about
this set of events. Why would the AHA give the benefit of the doubt to
Hamas rather than to Israel?

If AHA members had adopted the HAW resolutions, the name of the
American Historical Association would have become publicly associated
with the version of events peddled by Hamas, an organization justly
famous for terrorism and anti-Semitism, and which has not permitted academic freedom to thrive under its rule.Within the AHA, adoption of such resolution may have led to bitter
divisiveness and mass resignations. A cloud of suspicion may have hung
over young Jewish historians who could be suspected of guilt by
association with Israel, a suspicion that could have had grave
consequences on a job market that already is a political minefield.

In the broader public realm, the AHA would be associated in the
public sphere with a version of events offered by Historians Against the
War, a group of the radical left that had denounced Israel but had no
criticisms of Hamas.

The rejection of the resolutions also rested on a reassertion of the
principle that the AHA is a scholarly, not a political organization and
that there is a difference between scholarship and politics. Historians
as citizens have multiple other forums in which to express their views
on public matters.

The vote yesterday was, for me, an assertion that many of us oppose
efforts to use academic organizations to promote political purposes. It
was a vote against the politicization of the AHA.

The fight to oppose the politicization of the universities is not over.

Yet thanks to the efforts of many people, especially in the past year
or two, the American Historical Association will not be issuing
resolutions denouncing Israel in 2015. In this effort, mid-career
historians David Greenberg of Rutgers University and Sharon Musher of
Stockton College in New Jersey played an especially important role.

HAW and BDS activists may learn not to repeat their tactical blunders
of recent months. They are not going away. But after their defeat at
the AHA, their task has become far more difficult.

In the AHA, January 4, 2015 was one case in which good arguments and
careful preparation about matters of fact produced a result as welcome
as it was unexpected.

Jeffrey Herf is Distinguished
University Professor in the Department of History at the University of
Maryland in College Park and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. His
recent works include: Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (2009), and The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust (2006).Source: http://www.meforum.org/4957/inside-account-how-anti-israel-resolutions-were Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.